3 ms·

So the book is critical about the fact that Hawking was a celebrity, among other things. I get it, but personally I'd much prefer it there were more phycisists,

So the book is critical about the fact that Hawking was a celebrity, among other things. I get it, but personally I'd much prefer it there were more phycisists, mathematicians, doctors, biologists, etc etc. celebrities. We spend way too much time and money on people who kick a ball for a living, or who pretend to sing or act, while displaying their good looks. We can do better than that.

Georgelemental 5y ago
Would celebrity status help scientists do their job, though?
- williamtrask 5y ago
  If a billion dollars and all the followers/imitators were redirected from Kim Kardashian to the latest Nobel Prize winner, sure! It would change science sure, but monogrammed Microscopes and signed stethoscopes are probably better than the equivalent in makeup and fast fashion.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  Yes! Science/engineering influencers are becoming more popular and doing a great job getting themselves funding and also generating very impressive content. Look into - https://www.veritasium.com/ https://www.veritasium.com/ - crazy science education and practical experiments to “prove new science”. Check out the series of videos on a sail powered car that moves faster than the wind that pushes it!!! It sounds impossible, and then Derek shows that it’s possible! Including all the debates with other scientists about it. Also check out the “how energy flows” and all the reaction videos - this topic hasn’t yet been explored further tho so be prepared to wait (if this type of conversation isn’t science I don’t know what is). Mark Rober’s creative engineering classes, science based philanthropy with TeamSeas are meeting his goal of being effectively inspiring. This dude is going to generate a similar magnitude of new scientists and engineers as The Beatles have and keep generating new musicians. https://youtube.com/c/K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai https://youtube.com/c/K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai - People always wonder why I’m optimistic about the future. Karoly and his channel are a small but important part of why! Watching the pace of innovation here is the only way to truly understand the catch phrase “What a time to be alive!”. He curates scientific papers and gets them visibility better than the legacy science publications. This channel is the “new Nature magazine” and it’s funded by relevant/educational ads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Morris - Hamilton’s work documenting the effects of narcotics and also the scientific pathways behind them is inspiring. His team and him haven't so much created videos or video essays as they have created the first audio-visual encyclopedia. I’m sure there are many more I’m forgetting or haven’t yet heard of. You can also look into the Stanford/Harvard professors, the research doctors, the dermatologists, etc that are getting into YouTube/podcasts because it’s a better medium to have scientific information disseminated and hopefully draw more donations for their research. Not all science influencers are doing “real science” yet. Some of them are “science news/educators” others “science documentarians” but many of them are already directly contributing to “real innovative science”. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and getting ”paid” to show it off!!! Yes it takes a bit of curation to find the content creators that are also doing “real science” but for me it’s a no-brainer: in 100 years, because of the monetary incentives, more innovation will come from donation/ad based “science content creators” (on YouTube/podcasts/similar) than from legacy academic institutions.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  One can think of potential downsides, but the upsides would include: - More money flowing into science - More talent flowing into science
  - balsam 5y ago
    Sadly, the amount of talent flowing in could still outstrip the money
cjbgkagh 5y ago
AFAIK the French are more prone to scientific celebrities, but this has led to cult like institutions. Here competition for popular attention has led to increasingly outlandish claims and predictions. I would be happier with less scientific celebrities and less politics in science. A dry, austere, monkish existence where the only reward is recognition from your immediate peers.
Alekhine 5y ago
I used to be critical of athlete worship, as many nerds are, until I actually started becoming athletic. I still don't like sports culture, but I appreciate athleticism much more now. Intelligence, while important, is not the sole measure of a persons value, and its not a bad thing for a culture to value physicality. It's a very human thing, just like curiosity or creativity. Of course it would be nicer if we valued intellect to the same degree, but here we are. Point is, its not just kicking a ball. Its a lifetime of work and passion. A scientist does not have greater moral worth than an athlete or artist. These aren't worthless pursuits only idiots focus on.
- williamtrask 5y ago
  I think a comparison of the relative impact of Nobel Prize winners and Olympic gold medal winners would dispute your claim regarding moral worth. I can’t think of an athletic equivalent to the invention of vaccines, solar power, democracy, the internet, or even the concept of morality itself.
  - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
    By that metric, most people are worthless.
  - Alekhine 5y ago
    In the grand scheme, those things are more important. But coming up with an idea or solving a puzzle does not make a person better than another. Getting an Olympic medal could take equivalent effort to making a major scientific breakthrough. Its just that the kind of effort being made is different.

Georgelemental 5y ago

Would celebrity status help scientists do their job, though?

williamtrask 5y ago
If a billion dollars and all the followers/imitators were redirected from Kim Kardashian to the latest Nobel Prize winner, sure! It would change science sure, but monogrammed Microscopes and signed stethoscopes are probably better than the equivalent in makeup and fast fashion.
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
Yes! Science/engineering influencers are becoming more popular and doing a great job getting themselves funding and also generating very impressive content. Look into - https://www.veritasium.com/ https://www.veritasium.com/ - crazy science education and practical experiments to “prove new science”. Check out the series of videos on a sail powered car that moves faster than the wind that pushes it!!! It sounds impossible, and then Derek shows that it’s possible! Including all the debates with other scientists about it. Also check out the “how energy flows” and all the reaction videos - this topic hasn’t yet been explored further tho so be prepared to wait (if this type of conversation isn’t science I don’t know what is). Mark Rober’s creative engineering classes, science based philanthropy with TeamSeas are meeting his goal of being effectively inspiring. This dude is going to generate a similar magnitude of new scientists and engineers as The Beatles have and keep generating new musicians. https://youtube.com/c/K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai https://youtube.com/c/K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai - People always wonder why I’m optimistic about the future. Karoly and his channel are a small but important part of why! Watching the pace of innovation here is the only way to truly understand the catch phrase “What a time to be alive!”. He curates scientific papers and gets them visibility better than the legacy science publications. This channel is the “new Nature magazine” and it’s funded by relevant/educational ads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Morris - Hamilton’s work documenting the effects of narcotics and also the scientific pathways behind them is inspiring. His team and him haven't so much created videos or video essays as they have created the first audio-visual encyclopedia. I’m sure there are many more I’m forgetting or haven’t yet heard of. You can also look into the Stanford/Harvard professors, the research doctors, the dermatologists, etc that are getting into YouTube/podcasts because it’s a better medium to have scientific information disseminated and hopefully draw more donations for their research. Not all science influencers are doing “real science” yet. Some of them are “science news/educators” others “science documentarians” but many of them are already directly contributing to “real innovative science”. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and getting ”paid” to show it off!!! Yes it takes a bit of curation to find the content creators that are also doing “real science” but for me it’s a no-brainer: in 100 years, because of the monetary incentives, more innovation will come from donation/ad based “science content creators” (on YouTube/podcasts/similar) than from legacy academic institutions.
JohnBooty 5y ago
One can think of potential downsides, but the upsides would include: - More money flowing into science - More talent flowing into science
- balsam 5y ago
  Sadly, the amount of talent flowing in could still outstrip the money

cjbgkagh 5y ago

AFAIK the French are more prone to scientific celebrities, but this has led to cult like institutions. Here competition for popular attention has led to increasingly outlandish claims and predictions. I would be happier with less scientific celebrities and less politics in science. A dry, austere, monkish existence where the only reward is recognition from your immediate peers.

Alekhine 5y ago

I used to be critical of athlete worship, as many nerds are, until I actually started becoming athletic. I still don't like sports culture, but I appreciate athleticism much more now. Intelligence, while important, is not the sole measure of a persons value, and its not a bad thing for a culture to value physicality. It's a very human thing, just like curiosity or creativity. Of course it would be nicer if we valued intellect to the same degree, but here we are. Point is, its not just kicking a ball. Its a lifetime of work and passion. A scientist does not have greater moral worth than an athlete or artist. These aren't worthless pursuits only idiots focus on.

williamtrask 5y ago
I think a comparison of the relative impact of Nobel Prize winners and Olympic gold medal winners would dispute your claim regarding moral worth. I can’t think of an athletic equivalent to the invention of vaccines, solar power, democracy, the internet, or even the concept of morality itself.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  By that metric, most people are worthless.
- Alekhine 5y ago
  In the grand scheme, those things are more important. But coming up with an idea or solving a puzzle does not make a person better than another. Getting an Olympic medal could take equivalent effort to making a major scientific breakthrough. Its just that the kind of effort being made is different.